Semi-scale trains

Hi Arnold.  Great thread.  I am a comitted semi-scale modeller.  I run all steam and the MTH RK Imperial line is what pulled me over to O from HO several years ago.  To my eye, models of real prototypes, albeit with compressed dimensions, look great, even realistic, operating on my O42 curves.  Scale steam would look out of place and toy-like on my small layout.  To me, the key to semi-scale modelling is to make sure everything blends.  I run some scale rolling stock, but nothing bigger than a 40 ft boxcar.  Scale hoppers are 2-bay 34 footers.  Passenger cars are 15 in (60 ft). Structures are smallish too.  Everything fits together in my semi-scale world.

I do find the terms associated with other than scale modelling confusing.  "O-27," "traditional," and "post war" are all terms used in addition to "semi-scale."   I've never seen official definitions of these terms, but to me there are differences.  I use the term  semi-scale to refer to a model of a prototype, but with selectively compressed dimensions to better fit or operate in the intended modelling environment.  The other terms could refer to generic models that are not attributed to a actual prototypes.  I'd be interested to hear others opinions on this subject. 

For me, it's the trains that I like, and I can get a lot more train watching action in a given space with vintage O27 than I could even in HO scale. As long as the buildings, trains and automobiles are all relatively the same "scale" it works for me. Marx 3/16" scale on O gauge is good. Smaller prewar tin is good too. Like I said, I just want to see trains run in an environment that compliments them. I also enjoy making custom models that fit in with the old electric trains.

tncentrr posted:

With respect to everyone who has expressed an opinion, I think all of you are missing a vital point, that being that a train layout is a three dimensional picture, or a work of art. The question should not be, "Do my trains fit some standard of realism?", but, instead, "What effect does my layout have on the viewer?". I love to watch Arnold's videos because of the heart warming feeling I get. The masters who gave us our great two dimensional pictures were not concerned about size or realism as much as they were the effect their paintings had on the viewer. Take, for example, Leonardo DE Vinci's Mona Lisa. It is the most famous image in western civilization. The management of the Louvre Museum, where the Mona Lisa is displayed, says that more people come to see it than any other item in their collection, yet it is only 30 inches by 21 inches in size.   Take another example, again from DE Vinci, his Last Supper. All of the disciples are neatly arranged, six on each side of Christ, seated at a table, all facing the audience. They are all in an uproar after getting to news of the impending crucifixion. The apostle John has the highest position in the painting while Judas is punished with the lowest. The historians tell us that this painting is unrealistic and does not reflect the true dining practices in the middle east during biblical times, yet, it is still a great work of art, loved by millions the world over. There are other examples, but I won't het into them here as this is not really an art forum. My point is that, well done, for lack of a better term, "toy" layouts can move and effect the viewer as much, or more, as layouts that meet standard of everything being exactly 1:48 proportion. Those of us that have these layouts should not feel inferior to our scale counterparts.

BRAVO!!!! Well stated!

ALL: Semantics and terminolgy aside, there is NO "right" or "wrong" in this hobby! Run whatever YOU enjoy! Case closed!

I have thoroughly enjoyed all of your contributions made on this thread and others recently.  Many of your contributions show a stunning level of intelligence and ability to articulate.  The different insights, points of view and opinions make for very interesting reading.

I hope to meet all of you one day, perhaps when I make the pilgrimage to York, which I hope will happen in the foreseeable future. It's been about 25 years since the one and only time I went with my family to our O Gauge Model Railroad Mecca.

I find time accelerates as I get older. Poof! Before you know it, it will be Decrmber when we will also have an opportunity to meet at the Westchester Toy and Train Show in White Plains, NY. I almost always attend that show, and last year we arranged a Forum luncheon at City Limits Diner across the street. That show and luncheon were great fun, and I look forward to the next. Arnold

My first couple of layouts were all post war Lionel. When Williams came out with some "Little Joes" with longer locomotives and six wheel trucks, I bought three and did my first overhead system. I installed Ott sound systems in all three. Then MTH RailKing came along and I started buying larger steam engines with sound. I didn't know it then but I was headed for full scale. All Lionel crossing gates and signals were soon gone. I started kit building my town and all the ready made stations and structures were replaced. When I bought my first MTH scale engine that was it. I started selling off my Williams and some Lionel. The few Lionel engines and cars I kept never ran on the layout. It just happened in stages. 

By the way I think you can still run scale even on a small layout if you use small engines and shorter passenger cars. Good thread. Don

handyandy posted:

For me, it's the trains that I like, and I can get a lot more train watching action in a given space with vintage O27 than I could even in HO scale. As long as the buildings, trains and automobiles are all relatively the same "scale" it works for me. Marx 3/16" scale on O gauge is good. Smaller prewar tin is good too. Like I said, I just want to see trains run in an environment that compliments them. I also enjoy making custom models that fit in with the old electric trains.

I resemble two out of three of those pics.....

Okay to me I break it down like this O-27 the smaller trains ie 1679, 6014 etc. O gauge cars 6464, What some call semi scale which is bigger than the 6464 size but not quite scale , and then you actual scale but that very's  from producer to producer. Put a lionel, MTH, and Atlas boxcar side by side and they all will be different in length/height. I also wonder in the real world if a boxcar made by one company is exactly the same from another company. 

Hello All, this has been an interesting discussion and I agree with Melgar. However, to toss a log onto the fire, it would be impossible to have a perfectly scale model railroad because the permissable minimum curves would be measured in feet or yards and not in inches.

Art, your right. That's why I will never run 21 inch passenger cars even though I have 072 or larger curves. They still hang over. Don

Is there any truth to what I've heard years ago? That is, HO means half O. That said, should semi scale refer only to HO scale trains? 

Art Howes posted:

... to toss a log onto the fire, it would be impossible to have a perfectly scale model railroad because the permissible minimum curves would be measured in feet or yards and not in inches.

O-72 corresponds to a full scale track radius of 144 feet. I believe that real railroad cars are designed to operate on a 600-foot or larger track radius which would correspond to O-300.

MELGAR

Run both scale and traditional on the same layout although different tracks. Haven't really thought about what others think when I buy my stuff. Only have 2 criteria - do I like it and can I afford it? Even there, with PayPal 6 months payment plans, rule #2 has been violated on occasion. Like another poster to this thread, my scale engines tend to be the smaller switchers, GP-7, GP-9, RS-3, and I stick to PS-1 boxcar size so none of it looks ridiculous or has trouble navigating any part of the layout with FastTrack curves from O-36 to O-72. Buying more scale than traditional these days, but mostly because I'm tapped out on traditional stuff - don't need anymore.

Scale v traditional (semi-scale), real railroad lines v fantasy (have tons of this), remote operations v conventional, circle running v operational...meh. 

Recent conversation down in our railroad dungeon:

Friend: Wow, that red Santa Land engine is really cool. Look at it smoke! Never knew you were a such a serious railroad nut.

Me: Thanks, but I'm not considered "serious".

Friend: Who says?

Me: RIVITCNTR2, a legend on a train forum I subscribe to, says Christmas trains are about as real as Santa Claus and besides why would you have a cow catcher in the North Pole and not a snowplow?

Friend: How much did it cost for the engine?

Me: Well, Santa Land goes for about $500 but I got 20% off for buying an upgraded power supply for $150 and another $300 for the remote commander unit that allows you to blow the whistle from the other side of the room. Go ahead and walk over to the corner of the room and give it a try - really cool! Oh, and put the engineer hat on, too.

Friend: All sounds pretty serious to me.

Me: Not really, but hey, don't blow the whistle on the back wall straight away. That's a quiet zone.

MNCW posted:

Here was an article I wrote for the Tinplate Times, about my prewar switchers:

https://www.tinplatetimes.com/...iScale/semiscale.htm

Tom,

Thanks. Excellent article. I could use some more education on this subject.

MELGAR

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Although I generally prefer semi-scale/traditional O Gauge over scale O Gauge, I do have some scale (or close to scale) that I love.

Below is a video of such scale trains. The locomotive is a Williams NY Central F3, and the passenger cars are Lionel Postwar extruded aluminum cars. The F3s are big, but still run very well through my 031 curves. I believe the passenger cars were made to navigate the 031 curves, but i find that they derail more often than my semi-scale/traditionally sized passenger cars.

By the way, I assume those big Postwar passenger cars in the video are scale. Do you agree?

A good thing about running such big passenger cars on O31 tubular track is that it forces you to improve your track work to minimize/eliminate derailments. If your track work is not just right, such big cars will often derail.

Arnold

Arnold,

As intended, you have stoked controversy. Good!

Those are nice passenger cars and the engines (Alco FAs) and layout look great. Most passenger cars were about 84 feet in length, which converts to 21 inches in 1:48 O scale. O gauge cars seem to come in three lengths: 15, 18 and 21 inches. But, for the most part, only the 21-inch cars are scale length, although there were actual passenger cars with lengths less than 84 feet.

I must commend you on your layout. You have items of various scales (eg. crossing gates, apartment houses, the stadium) but the overall effect is very interesting - even more so than on my "realistic" 10'-by-5' scale layout on which conforming to scale actually limits a creative approach like yours.

Unfortunately, model railroaders often seem to be very parochial in their thinking. Only one way (theirs) is correct and no one else knows what they're doing. This is sometimes evident between modelers and publications in the various gauges, between 2-rail and 3-rail devotees and, as this thread has shown, between "scale" and "semi-scale" O gaugers.

MELGAR

 What I’m finding myself enjoying more and more are some of the trains that are traditional sized but “scale-detailed” - if that’s even a thing

Lionchief Plus NW2 switchers fall into this category for me - pretty much a postwar die-cast switcher with all new running gear / electronics / scale detailing etc

I have no problem running this stuff next to full scale Legacy engines - they seem to look fine together to me

dorfj2 posted:

 What I’m finding myself enjoying more and more are some of the trains that are traditional sized but “scale-detailed” - if that’s even a thing

Lionchief Plus NW2 switchers fall into this category for me - pretty much a postwar die-cast switcher with all new running gear / electronics / scale detailing etc

I have no problem running this stuff next to full scale Legacy engines - they seem to look fine together to me

The old switcher bodies (both steam and diesel) are actually scale sized (or VERY close to it)   

Ferroequinologist 1 posted:

Is there any truth to what I've heard years ago? That is, HO means half O. That said, should semi scale refer only to HO scale trains? 

Yep, half O.  But no not semi-scale. There are a few semi-scale ho too, but most are to the scale of 1:87  approximately half of 1:48. Ho is a dominantly scale oriented segment of the hobby.

  I think I like the broad term of semi-scale.  Selective compression " is still used on "scale" models , vs true scale and I think it better serves the true scale folk as well as semi-scale does as a standalone comment or division of the scale realm vs use it to coin a new term for semi-scale. 

I.e. if an engine was made for O track to 1:55 in exacting scale and I saw it without being told 1:55 exactly, my first inclination would be "semi-scale" because of the small size.  I never thought semi-scale refered to much else than that.  Some proportions changed in any model, a given. (come on;we modelers as a majority seldom even had scale track in O.

  I'd either be going proto 48  to cry over scale or settling for a happy balance  like I have been "forever" 

Tinplate Art posted:

ALL: Semantics and terminolgy aside, there is NO "right" or "wrong" in this hobby! Run whatever YOU enjoy! Case closed!

Exactly.   Who made anyone the arbitrator of what is right or wrong.    Enjoy the hobby anyway you like.  

I did not take any of the inputs on this thread as people trying to litigate right or wrong. I do think it is an interesting discussion on an aspect of our hobby.  

Scale is like being pregnant..you are or are not!

Hello Arnold and thank you for this thread.

I am a committed Semi-scaler...for the following reasons:

1. I just don't have the real estate to build a prototypical scale layout 

2.  I have a limited budget...therefore I scrounge, recycle, create, hunt and enjoy those engines, cars, accessories etc. that I can find under the tables at shows,, auctions and resale shops.

3.  I play with my trains.  Prototypical scale modelers tend to operate their pike's.  No derogatory intent here.

4. I am an avid K-Line collector/runner......and I do miss them.  They had the low end of the market cornered but aspired to something more....and it cost them.

Our layouts look similar.....I run O27 profile tubular track with minimum 42" curves.

The term "traditional" has been used several times during this discussion, usually in the context of meaning "semi-scale", or O27 size. Here's where things can get confusing.

Some of you may remember a thread I started late last year, asking about this very thing: I has looking on eBay at buying a Lionel #6-28005 PRR E6, which Lionel themselves called "Traditional Scale": I asked here what that meant. Did that mean it was O27/post-war size ("Traditional") or full-on "Scale"? After some discussion, which didn't really give a definitive answer, I went ahead and bought it anyway. 

As it turns out, it is indeed 1:48 full size scale; a very nice Korean-built model from 2000.

So even Lionel has been guilty of muddying the waters...  

Happy Fourth.  

Mark in Oregon

Great thread Arnold.

As a wise Englishman once said "My brain hurts"

I find the discussion interesting with many varied opinions. Personally I run what I like and what fits on my small layout with 027 curves. When I got back into the hobby several years ago I thought that I could run anything I wanted and quickly learned otherwise. I grew up with HO trains, had two different layouts till I was 18 and enjoyed it tremendously. O gauge presented challenges that I hadn't considered before I built my layout, had I done so I probably would have stayed with HO. Regardless if the space issues I'm enjoying my trains and building my little railroad empire.

I started buying post-war stuff and then MPC. More recently some newer PS-1 and Legacy/ command locos have appeared. Still running all conventional but I do find the higher level of detailing on these locos to be more appealing. I have amassed quite a few K-line MP-15's, S-2's, and Plymouths and will keep looking for their stuff and will buy if it fits my needs. I run several northeast railroads and use that criteria as a limiting factor to what I buy. The exception being Santa Fe for sentimental reasons. I guess you could say that I model the steam/ diesel transition up to the 70's so today's husky stacks and 80' box cars will never be of interest. I can accept 15" passenger cars behind a ALCO PA or short box cars behind a 0-4-0 switcher or a GP-7.

It's a good thing that space limits what I can do or I'd have gone broke by now........

I will leave you all with a brief comparison- two Lionel box cars, same railroad, very different size...

Bob

Ah, what a question!

I get the reasoning as to why there really isn't "semi" scale.  I've tended to refer to the non-scale sized equipment as "traditonal" size. Works for me.

Now, about that question...

For me, there is a certain charm in the traditional offerings of Lionel en company. Many, many times they hit home runs with their adaptive approach to bring large subjects into a small setting. To me, a few of the BEST examples to my eyes:

* The Lionel Berkshire.  What a handsome brute!

* The "Baby" Hudsons. (The one's based on Santa Fe.)

* The Berkshire Hudsons. (Used the same boiler as the Berk.)

* The cast frame FA's.

* The stamped frame FA's

* 6464 sized boxcars.

* The little Alco switcher as rendered by RMT and called a "Bang".

* MTH Railking F3s.

* Other examples.

If the circumstances dictated, I think I could be happy with a layout using the above types of equipment. The only real requirement to me would be that all equipment used would need to be close in relational size. That is, to avoid the examples similar to that posted by RSJB18. (Though said example does portrays the extreme between a full scale item and a traditional sized.)

So, yes, I find traditional-sized equipment to have a certain appeal that is enchanting, and I think as long as I kept a layout setting congruent with the traditional approach to the equipment, the end result would be pleasing to my eye, and could be a fun way to enjoy miniature trains.

All fer now!

Andre

Very interesting and positive thread. Good to see!

Look at any mixed (merchandise) freight train and you will often see tank cars of very different sizes, boxcars of different sizes, flatcars of different sizes, hoppers of different sizes, etc. Which is "scale" or not scale if they are different sizes?  Like our O gauge toy trains they are all the same gauge, but the sizes vary significantly. 

Given the above, I see no problem carefully mixing scale and smaller O gauge trains and buildings and accessories or running trains that are smaller than exact O scale. 

A large part of the enjoyment of running my trains is allowing my imagination to fill in what can't be represented on a layout. As a kid I only had a 4' X 8' Super O layout, but I could spend hours watching the trains go around, varying the speed, changing locomotives, running through the siding, etc. Though my present layout is much larger and more detailed, I still enjoy letting my imagination roam. One day I might see my trains running on the Virginian Railway, another on the Pennsylvania and yet another on the Long Island RR, depending on what locos and rolling stock I put on the tracks. 

The joys of our hobby are in the relaxation and escape from the real world it provides, the family time, the camaraderie with fellow train enthusiasts, going to train shows, etc. Since real trains (other than unit trains) have rolling stock of varying sizes there is no reason our toy trains shouldn't have as well. 

For a serious subset of our fellow train hobbyists, one of the most important joys is recreating very accurately detailed museum quality layouts. In that environment, running all scale equipment among the scale sized buildings and scenery makes perfect sense. The products that our serious modelers demand benefit all of us. Look at the features and price points we see in the Lion Chief + and MTH Rail King trains that have filtered down from the expensive scale models. It has been an amazing evolution of product over the last few years.

In the end, which aspects of the hobby are most important to you will determine how important scale trains are (or are not) in creating your layout. You should be playing with trains to please yourself and choose what works for you while enjoying and appreciating what others do with their layouts.

Simon Winter posted:

You're a good guy Arnold but something is either to scale or it's NOT. Semi-scale is just some huckster's deception.

Simon

Applying that logic means that there really is no such thing as “three-rail scale” because of that pesky middle rail, and even “O two rail” can’t be called scale since the gauge is 5 feet. Arguably, only Proto 48 should be referred to as “Scale”, everything else is NOT. I guess there’s a lot of hucksters out there in O! As long as it’s all fun, does it really matter?

Bill in FtL

The F3, the FM, high end NW2, the Shell and Gulf tankers, the large Mech opetating boxcar to me are/were at scale size.

Bill Nielsen posted:

Simon Winter posted:

You're a good guy Arnold but something is either to scale or it's NOT. Semi-scale is just some huckster's deception.

Simon

Applying that logic means that there really is no such thing as “three-rail scale” because of that pesky middle rail, and even “O two rail” can’t be called scale since the gauge is 5 feet. Arguably, only Proto 48 should be referred to as “Scale”, everything else is NOT. I guess there’s a lot of hucksters out there in O! As long as it’s all fun, does it really matter?

Bill in FtL

If it is not scale, it is not fun.

Possible Donald Duck quote.

As a kid I wanted the f3s, fms, large steam engines,etc. Now that I have those some of the o27 seem interesting. They are all good.